Loading...
4/25/1988MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA April 25, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, by Mayor Swanson on Monday, April 25, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Mayor Swanson ABSENT: Councilman Heinsheimer (excused) Councilman Pernell (arrived at 7:45 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Michael Jenkins City Attorney Betty Volkert Deputy City Clerk Chief Ray Brunstrom L. A. Co. Fire Dept. Capt. Dennis Gillard Sheriff's Department Ann Johnson Los Angeles Times Anne La Jeunesse Palos Verdes News Douglas McHattie South Bay Engineering Mr. & Mrs. Roger Rooney Observers Miss Sarah Rooney Observer Mr. Warren Sweetnam Observer Dr. & Mrs. Adesko Residents Dr. Dave Basque Mr. & Mrs. Jim Brogdon Mr. Donald Gales Mr. Paul Grubs Mr. Roger Hawkins Mr. & Mrs. Lee Hutchinson Mr. & Mrs. Ikezawa Mr. & Mrs. Liu Mrs. Cathy Manning Mr. Wilton Margrave Mr. & Mrs. Garth Moore Mr. Carl Price Mrs. Betsy Raine Mr. Rod Rodriguez Dr. Paul Rubenstein Mr. Ping Shu Mr. Bill Stringfellow Mrs. Shirley Tyndall Mr. Ron Warmbier Mr. & Mrs. Chung Yu CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved as presented. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of a regular meeting held on April 11, 1988, and an adjourned meeting held. on April 13, 1988, were approved and accepted as presented. PAYMENT OF BILLS Demands Nos. 2812 through 2845, in the amount of $31,074.39, were approved for payment from the General Fund. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The Financial Statement "for March, 1988, was approved and accepted as presented. MATTERS FROM STAFF SB 2287: BUSINESS INVENTORY EXEMPTION The, City Manager explained that the purpose of Senate Bill 2287, introduced by Senator Vuich, is to restore to special districts throughout the State of California revenues lost as a result of the adoption of legislation immediately subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13. One of the major financing sources for special districts was Business Inventory Exemption Subvention. This revenue source provided a significant amount of revenue for the Los Angeles County Fire Protection District, which is a special district. This legislation seeks to restore Business Inventory Exemption revenues to special districts throughout the State. The Fire co Department has asked that the City Council review this legislation r- and, if in favor, that the Council indicate their support by means of Lo a letter to the State Senate as well as to the Assembly and to the Governor. m It was staff's recommendation that the City Council express Q their support of this legislation, to assist the County of Los Angeles Fire Department in restoring a significant amount of revenue to its revenue sources. The Mayor asked if this would have a positive impact on the services to the community. The City Manager stated that it would have a positive impact in the sense that in the future the district would not be in a position of having to remove from its current expenditure levels, this amount of revenue, thereby necessitating a cut back in services. Mayor Swanson entertained a motion in support of SB 2287. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock so moved. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. BUILDING. ZONING. PLANNING. AND SUBDIVISION PROCEDURE CHARTS The City Manager requested that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the City Council. He stated that he had received additional comments that he wants to incorporate into the charts. Thus, this matter was held on the agenda. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD The, City Manager explained that over the past several months the Council and staff have discussed the status of the Environmental Quality Board, in terms of it continuing to function as a City commission. As indicated in a report by staff, many, if not all, of the responsibilities that the Environmental Quality Board have are, in many cases, performed by the Planning Commission, thus, in many ways, rendering the Environmental Quality Board a redundant body. Therefore, staff recommended that the City Council consider repealing the legislation that created the Environmental Quality Board. If the City Council so desires, staff would return at a future date with an appropriate ordinance that would accomplish this. However, if the City Council would like to continue with the Environmental Quality Board, staff asked to be informed of this so that the necessary actions could be taken. Mayor Swanson asked Mayor Pro Tem Murdock for her opinion regarding this matter. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock commented that although it is valuable to have various opportunities for members of the community to serve in varying capacities, no one likes to spend time on something that is redundant. If the concerns of the California Environmental Quality Act are being addressed by the Planning 2 120 Commission, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing to have a board that serves no purpose. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Murdock. The City Manager explained that the functions that are required to be performed under state law are performed by the Planning Commission. There being no objections, the Mayor ordered that staff return to the Council with the appropriate legislation that would repeal the' Environmental Quality Board. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ISSUES: L. A. Co. Sanitation District - Recvclina Proaram The City Manager reported on activities of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Recently, the Districts considered the formulation of a plan that would make accumulated surcharge monies available to individual cities, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 for the purpose of developing a residential recycling implementation plan. The Districts are proposing this in anticipation of the State mandating these plans throughout the State of California. If the State of California were to mandate a recycling plan and if a City chose not to participate in a recycling program, a charge of $2.00 per ton of refuse collection would be assessed in the way of a fine, to the jurisdictions that do not abide by the legislation. The City Manager explained that, at the present time, the County Sanitation Districts have not adopted this program, and this matter is simply being reported for informational purposes only. The Mayor reported that the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation District voted, at their last meeting, to approve, in concept, the distribution of up to $5,000.00 to individual cities, if they apply for it, to be used for development of a recycling plan. Mayor Swanson suggested waiting to see what legislation is ultimately adopted by the State. If, indeed, the legislation is as punitive as it was designed to be and if it were to pass, then, the City would have no choice but to put a plan into place since the penalty that would be imposed is quite severe and would continue until such time as the municipality were to implement a recycling program, afterwhich, the money would be returned except for all the administrative costs on the part of the State, which would be retained. The Mayor suggested that the Council keep an eye on the progress of the legislation and consider the possibility of having a pilot program. BFI Aareement The City Manager reported, that staff has been discussing the current agreement with Browning-Ferris Industries for refuse collection, and the possible extension of the agreement on a multi-year basis. The City Manager stated that the purpose for bringing this matter to the Council's attention is that a neighboring city recently completed a Request for Proposal process for residential refuse collection. As a result of that process, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes actually experienced a rate decrease. For that reason, this is being reported to the City Council and staff asked for direction regarding this matter. COUNCILMAN PERNELL ARRIVED AT THE MEETING. The City Manager cautioned that, should the Council decide to proceed with the Request for Proposal process, the Council take into consideration the transition time from one company to another. The service provided to the City of Rolling Hills is very different from all the other cities, which have curbside service. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock suggested that the City proceed with a Request for Proposal process and Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock explained that, although the service has been fine, the Council has an obligation, under the circumstances and given the cost of the expenditure, to look out for the welfare of the - 3 - C -11 C) -11 141 residents. Thishasbeen a long standing contract and perhaps things have changed. There certainly would be nothing that would preclude BFI from submitting a bid. The Mayor invited comments from the audience regarding this matter, however, there were none. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that the City proceed with a Request for Proposal for refuse collection. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion. Councilman Pernell apologized for his late arrival, and asked for a brief explanation of the reasons for proceeding with a Request for Proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock explained that it appears there would be a substantial rate increase if the City continues service with BFI. It was Mayor Pro Tem Murdock's feeling that there would be no way of making a value judgement as to whether the proposed rate increase would be fair or not without getting competitive bids. Councilman Pernell stated that, from past experience, the determining factor as to whether or not a refuse collection company could adequately service the City was the type of vehicle used. The City Manager explained that the purpose of the RFP would be to obtain competitive bids for the refuse collection franchise. The City Council would retain the perogative to select a firm based on the lowest responsible bid, which allows the Council to evaluate factors other than the rate. The advantage of proceeding with a Request for Proposal, as seen in other neighboring cities, is that it could provide a more advantageous cost picture for the City. Councilman Pernell asked when the current contract with BFI would expire. The City Manager explained that the contract would expire on September 1, 1988; therefore, the RFP would be put out immediately. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh confirmed with the City Manager that BFI has never actually submitted a bid for refuse collection in the City of Rolling Hills, due to the fact that BFI bought out the previous company that was providing service and simply rolled over the contract, absorbing the remaining three years of the contract that was held by the previous company. Councilman Pernell asked the city Manager if the representatives from BFI appear to be in a negotiating posture, and the City Manager replied that BFI is willing to negotiate. The proposed rate increase is a range between 10% and 17%, within which the City could negotiate. The Mayor verified with the City Manager that the negotiations are not at a standstill, and, also, that proceeding with a RFP would not impede the negotiations. However, the City Manager stated that the RFP would take precedence over any further negotiations; he would not continue to negotiate at the same time that there was a RFP out. Councilman Pernell remarked that that is exactly the point, i.e., negotiations would come to a halt. Councilman Pernell suggested that the City Manager continue negotiations with the representatives from BFI. It was Councilman Pernell's feeling that there is a certain advantage to having a long-term association and that the Council should explore that advantage before proceeding down another path. Mayor Swanson stated that Councilman Pernell had a valid argument, however, another concern of the Council's is whether or not the City can get the same service for less. - 4 - Councilman Pernell offered a motion to postpone action, pending further negotiations by either a Council Sub -committee of the City Manager with the representatives for BFI. Councilman Pernell explained that if a new company were to provide service to the community it would require a learning process and a honeymoon period which could be disruptive to the community. Councilman Pernell felt it would be advantageous to continue negotiations with the City's current refuse collection company. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock asked Councilman Pernell if he would _ consider a time limit on the postponement. Councilman Pernell stated that he felt a month would be sufficient. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock said that she felt it shouldn't extend any longer than a month because then the time frame for proceeding with a Request for Proposal becomes difficult. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock also asked the City Manager if there might be some way of obtaining comparative prices without going to a RFP to determine, in the negotiations with BFI, whether or not BFI's rates are in line with other companies. The City Manager commented that he thought there would be a mechanism for obtaining such information since this is a highly competitive industry. Councilman Pernell said that, as part of the negotiating process, staff should determine what else is available without going to a formal RFP. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock seconded Councilman Pernell's motion with the stipulation that.it be limited to one month, not to go past the second Council meeting in May. The motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE Mayor Swanson announced that the City Clerk would administer the Oath of Office to Councilman Pernell, however, Councilman Heinsheimer was absent and, therefore, the Oath of Office would be administered to Councilman Heinsheimer at a subsequent meeting. The City Clerk, Mr. Belanger, administered the Oath of Office to Councilman Pernell. Mayor Swanson congratulated Councilman Pernell, and commented that he ran for re-election uncontested which is usually an indication of a job well-done. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPEAL OF ZONING CASE NO.355. YU-PING LIU. 39 CREST ROAD WEST Mayor Swanson announced that Zoning Case No. 355 is a request by Yu -Ping Liu for a Conditional Use Permit for a Tennis Court at 39 Crest Road West. The City Manager displayed the site development plan for 39 Crest Road West, indicating the proposed location of the tennis court. The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission, after conducting two public hearings and a field site investigation, took action to approve, by a vote of 3-2, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court. There were adjacent residents who expressed opposition to the proposed tennis court. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, the City Council received a report from the Planning Commission, at which time both of the adjacent property owners appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. Thus, the City Council set the matter for a public hearing. The Council then heard this matter at their last meeting, took public testimony, and continued the public hearing to allow the Councilmembers to conduct an on-site investigation of the proposed location of the tennis court. The Councilmembers conducted their on-site investigation on April 13, 1988, and Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh made an on-site investigation separately. - 5 - CJ 123, Mayor Swanson asked the City Manager if the Council had received all correspondence regarding this matter. The City Manager reported that, in addition to the letters already received, the Council had before them two additional letters: one which was received over the weekend from the applicant, Mr. Yu -Ping Liu; and one from the prospective owners of one of the neighboring properties that had previously submitted a letter of opposition, Mr. and Mrs. Krauthamer. Mayor Swanson reopened the public hearing and invited public testimony. Mr. Roger Hawkins, 37 Crest Road West, stated that it's his belief that the reason this particular request has created some controversy is due to the fact that the site is a non -conforming lot and, therefore, necessitates that the location of the tennis court be only 90 feet from his residence and 75 feet from the other adjacent residence. Mr. Hawkins explained that his family's main concern is that of noise. He said that, previously, conditions restricting use were discussed, however, he understood that the Council had concerns 00 regarding imposing restrictions which might be difficult or expensive to enforce later on. Mr. Hawkins agreed that enforcement of nuisance complaints can be difficult. Although the Lius are very responsible -� neighbors, subsequent owners of the property may not be as thoughtful and responsible. Mr. Hawkins said that the City, should it be inclined to grant the request, should be willing to bear some element Q of responsibility if things were not to go well down the road. Mr. Hawkins went on to say that, if the Council chooses to approve the request, the following conditions should be imposed: the hours of play be restricted to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; the court be used for tennis purposes only; and, the tennis court be screened in such a way as to mitigate the noise pollution. Mr. Hawkins also stated that he understands that the prospective buyers of the 011a property -have the same concerns with regard to noise abatement, and that they have an additional concern regarding drainage since the tennis court would basically be a subterranean court. Mr. Hawkins remarked that his backyard is his only sanctuary since his front yard faces onto Crest Road, which gets a majority of the traffic through the City. Mr. Yu -Ping Liu, 39 Crest Road West, addressed the Council and ,explained that playing tennis is his relaxation and therapy from work. Although the lot is not a big lot, they complied with all the conditions and restrictions of Ordinance 215 and the policy memorandum of March 1980. With regard to the noise issue, Mr. Liu explained that the tennis court, per se, is not what makes noise, it is the people that use the tennis court that create the noise. Mr. Liu said that he agrees to do whatever is necessary to mitigate the noise. With regard to the water drainage, Mr. Liu stated that he is confident that South Bay Engineering would design the appropriate drainage to allow the water to drain from the court properly. Dr. Paul Rubinstein, 25 Eastfield Drive, commented that he has a tennis court and that he has two neighbors that also have tennis courts less than 90 feet from his home, and he has never had a problem with noise pollution. He stated that he occasionally hears them playing tennis but that it has never been a problem. Mrs. Chi -Ling Liu, 39 Crest Road West, explained that the reason that the Hawkins' house is only 90 feet from the proposed tennis court is because the Hawkins were granted a Variance to encroach 25 feet into the side yard setback. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Swanson closed the public hearing. Councilman Pernell asked the City Manager if the last statement, made by Mrs. Liu, was correct. The City Manager reported that the Hawkins were granted a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback. The City Manager wasn't sure as to the exact amount of 124 encroachment but he thought it was about 15 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock asked if the Variance was granted for a residence addition and not for an accessory use. The City Manager confirmed that the Variance was for a residence addition. Mayor Swanson explained to the applicants that whatever the Council decides is the final decision. Mayor Pro Tern Murdock commented that this is a very difficult decision. However, after viewing the lot and the proximity of the proposed tennis court, not only to the surrounding properties but also to the house itself, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock stated that she could not vote in favor of the request because she feels it is an inappropriate use of the lot. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock went on to say that, unfortunately, not every lot lends itself to the type of development that is being proposed, and what may be appropriate on one lot may not be appropriate on another lot. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock said that the Council has an obligation to consider the noise factor as it concerns the surrounding neighbors, and there is no way that that can be controlled in a practical manner. As stated by Mr. Hawkins, there are several non -conforming properties in this vicinity and, due to that fact, the proximity to the other properties makes the tennis court an incompatible use. Councilman Pernell commented that this is also made difficult because of the temperament of the applicant, which is very agreeable and responsible. However, after viewing the lot, Councilman Pernell also felt that the construction of the tennis court would be overdeveloping that particular site, and the Council must give preference to residential uses as opposed to accessory uses. In conclusion, Councilman Pernell agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Murdock. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh asked that the record show that she attended a field site investigation on Friday morning, April 15, 1988. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh commented that she, too, feels that the applicant has been very cooperative. However, due to the fact that the adjoining lots are non -conforming, Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh felt that to add to the use in this particular area would not be compatible with the best interests of the community. Mayor Swanson said that she had given this a great deal of thought, and that the Lius are extraordinary neighbors and extremely nice people. However, the Mayor agreed with the other Councilmembers. She stated that when looking at the proposed plans it looked rather tight, and after viewing the proposed project° on-site, it looked even tighter. The proposed tennis court would be extremely close to the applicants''living area besides being close to the adjacent neighbors. The Mayor stated that, after viewing the proposed project, the site development was not in keeping with the rural character of the City. Therefore, she is also opposed to this requested use. Mayor Swanson explained that the Council must look at the development of a parcel in a way that would be in the best interests of the community. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock moved that staff return to the Council with a Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 355. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. OPEN AGENDA Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to address the City Council on any matter which was not on the agenda. The Mayor explained that anyone wishing to address the Council would be allowed five minutes to, present their concerns, and that no action would be taken at this meeting. It would, however, be placed on a future agenda if the Council feels it is necessary. There were no comments from the audience. - 7 - i 125- PROPOSED 25 - PROPOSED ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON AND VIEWS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY The City Manager explained that the Council has before them a recommendation from the Planning Commission of an ordinance for the purpose of preserving and restoring views from private property within the City of Rolling Hills. The process of drafting the proposed view ordinance, at the Planning Commission level, took several months to complete. The process began last summer and over the past several months the Planning Commission has held a series of public hearings for the purpose of receiving public testimony from members of the community as it relates to the development of an ordinance for the purpose of allowing residents to have their views either preserved or restored. Over this same period of time, the Planning Commission worked through several drafts of an ordinance which would accomplish this purpose. The City Manager explained that the Council actually has two proposed ordinances before them. One is entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON AND VIEWS 00 FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY", which is the ordinance that was approved by the Planning Commission and was forwarded to the City Council. The LO other proposed ordinance also reflects the action of the Planning Commission in a somewhat different way. It is entitled "AN ORDINANCE m OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGULATING VIEWS AND PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF VIEW IMPAIRMENTS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS Q MUNICIPAL CODE". This ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney and incorporates the spirit and the intent of the ordinance of the Planning Commission. The City Council has the authority and the perogative to adopt the latter ordinance without having to refer it back to the Planning Commission. Also, if the City Council wishes to modify the proposed ordinance they have the perogative of directing staff to implement the modifications and return to the Council with the amended ordinance. Mayor Swanson asked if the Council had copies of all the letters that were written to the Planning Commission and City Council by residents regarding this matter. The City Manager stated that the Council did have a copy of all the letters that had been received and that the majority of letters express support of an ordinance that allows for neighbors to attempt to resolve their differences. However, there are at least two letters that express a different point of view as it relates to view impairment. Mayor Swanson asked that the City Attorney brief the Council and audience on the issues that he outlined in his version. The City Attorney explained that he originally prepared an ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission. And, after the Commission took testimony and considered the matter, it recommended its own version of the ordinance, which contained some differences from that which the City Attorney had prepared. Since then, the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance that the Planning Commission approved, and had some concerns about some of its provisions. Therefore, the City Attorney explained that he essentially took from it those things which were new which had not been in his original ordinance, incorporated them into his original version, and prepared a new version. The main differences between his version and the one recommended by the Planning Commission, with the exception of some language differences, are as follows: 1) The City Attorney removed some definitions which were unnecessary. 2) The Planning Commission ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to maintain vegetation that unreasonably obstructs views. The ordinance prepared by the City Attorney does not; it simply makes it a misdemeanor to not comply with the ultimate determination of the final decision making body respecting the view impairment, which would be the City Council. The City Attorney stated that it is his opinion that if it's a misdemeanor to obstruct views unreasonably then 126 one could resort to the criminal remedy first without going through the administrative process and that that would be a mistake in view of the fact that it would be very difficult to place these matters into a court to determine what is and is not an unreasonable view obstruction, particularly in a criminal context. Therefore, the City Attorney deleted this from his ordinance and simply made it a violation of the ordinance to fail to comply with the final decision of the City Council with respect to a view impairment complaint. 3) Another important distinction is that the Planning Commission ordinance contains essentially a four tier process. The first tier calls for informal conciliation by the View Impairment Committee, to be followed by a formal hearing by the Committee, to be followed by arbitration by an arbitrator, and then to be followed by a potential appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney explained that he had several reservations about this procedure. First, it seemed to be unwise to have the Committee serving both as a mediator and then, secondarily, as a body conducting a public hearing. Also, since the arbitration is not a final and binding arbitration it is nothing more than a mediation or conciliation, which seems to be a repeat of the first tier of the process only that it is done by a single individual rather than the Committee. This redundancy seemed unnecessary and time consuming. The City Attorney, accordingly, adopted a three tier process. The first tier is a conciliation or mediation process, which would be conducted by a single mediator who could be selected in any way that the Council desired. This person would take the initial crack at attempting to solve the problem. If the mediation failed, the matter could go to a public hearing before the Committee, in much the same way that the Planning Commission hears matters. And, finally, if that fails to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the parties, it could be appealed to the City Council for final decision. This process is simpler, less time consuming and it also utilizes all of the concepts of the Planning Commission ordinance. That is to say, it includes a mediation or conciliation aspect, it includes a hearing before an appointed committee, and it ultimately results in an appeal to the City Council. 4) The City Attorney made some minor changes with respect to findings that would be made in a determination of whether or not an obstruction should be removed or modified. The City Attorney stated that that pretty well summarizes the major differences between the two ordinances. Mayor Swanson asked the City Attorney to clarify paragraph "B" under Section 8.32.060, on page 4 of his ordinance. The City Attorney explained that the ordinance makes it the responsibility of the complainant to pay the cost of the removal, abatement, or modification, as the case may be, of the obstructing vegetation, which is the same as the Planning Commission's version, except for certain extenuating circumstances which are indicated in paragraph "D". The way it is set up is that the complainant gets three bids from licensed and qualified contractors and then provides a cash deposit in the amount of the lowest bid. The owner of the vegetation may select that low bid, in which case payment has already - 9 - 0 12.7 been made in that amount. However, if the owner of the vegetation decides to select some other contractor and it costs more than that low bid, then the owner of the vegetation would be responsible for the difference. 1.,. There being no further questions from the Council, Mayor Swanson opened the public hearing to receive testimony regarding this matter. The Mayor requested that each speaker limit their remarks to about 3 minutes. Councilman Pernell asked that the more pertinent elements of the ordinance be pointed out. He stated further that it is his. understanding that the Council is really only considering one ordinance, that which was approved by the Planning Commission, and that the City Attorney had simply made an alternate recommendation. The City Manager explained that the City Attorney, Mr. Michael Jenkins, had incorporated the ordinance that the Planning Commission submitted to the Council into a format that allows it to be adopted more readily by reciting code sections and things of that nature. 00 The other substantive changes that have been made may change the way V -j the Planning Commission ordinance was originally written but it does LO not really change the intent of their ordinance, which was to create a process for prosecuting these complaints. CO Mayor Swanson said it is her understanding that the City Q Attorney's ordinance cleans up the ordinance that was submitted by the Planning Commission. It takes out unnecessary definitions that are already in the code, and it simplifies the process by making it a three tier instead of a four tier procedure. Councilman Pernell asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission had had the advantage of his advice. Mr. Jenkins stated that when they initially started the process, the Planning Commission had a version of his ordinance before them. The differences between that original ordinance and the ordinance as it now appears before the City Council are: (1) that the City Attorney added definitions for a "tree" and a "hedge", which are also in the Planning Commission ordinance; (2) the City Attorney established a committee on trees and views, which is identical to what the Planning Commission has proposed in their ordinance; (3) the procedure for abatement is identical to the procedure that the City Attorney originally submitted to the Planning Commission; (4) the findings are identical; (5) the implementation of the restorative action, that is the allocation of costs and the method of performing the work, is identical; (6) there are some changes in paragraph "D" pertaining to those circumstances underwhich the City, be it either the Committee or the Council, on appeal, would reallocate that cost, possibly, back to the owner; and, finally, (7) the section on desirable and undesirable trees, with respect to the preparation of lists, was taken from the Planning Commission ordinance. In all other respects, the ordinance is that which was given to the Planning Commission originally. The City Attorney commented that the differences between the two ordinances are largely stylistic, except for those substantive issues which he has already raised. Councilman Pernell commented that he felt it was important to be aware that the Planning Commission did have the benefit of legal counsel and, for whatever reasons, decided to draft their own ordinance. This, Councilman Pernell remarked, carried a lot of weight, in his opinion. The City Attorney addressed Mayor Swanson's question concerning the responsibility of the owner to implement an order of abatement. He explained that in both ordinances the complainant is obligated to pay for the cost of the abatement of the view obstruction. Subsequent maintenance of the vegetation is at the expense of the owner of the property. This means that once the abatement is accomplished it is the responsibility of the owner, thereafter, to continue to maintain and trim the vegetation in order to keep it in the same manner so as to eliminate the view obstruction. Mayor Swanson asked if this would apply to all - 10 - its subsequent owners, and the City Attorney and Mayor Pro Tem Murdock stated that it would be recorded against the property, and would, therefore, apply to any owner of the property. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock stated that she shares Councilman Pernell's concern with respect to the Planning Commission reviewing the ordinance being proposed by the City Attorney, and asked if the Council were to adopt first reading of this ordinance tonight, could the Planning Commission review the ordinance and submit their recommendations before the second reading. The City Attorney replied that that would certainly be acceptable. Mayor Swanson asked the City Manager to comment on how the Planning Commission arrived at their proposed ordinance since he attends the Planning Commission meetings. The City Manager stated that it was not a matter of rejecting the recommendations of the City Attorney, it was more a matter of expanding upon the recommendations of the City Attorney. The ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission proposes a lengthier process. The Planning Commission had a desire to look at other cities to see what other cities were doing regarding this issue and, in the process of creating this ordinance, they took elements of several ordinances from throughout the State of California and incorporated them into this ordinance. The City Attorney stated there was one change to the original Planning Commission ordinance, which was of a legal nature. The original Planning Commission ordinance called for binding arbitration; it did not call for an appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney said that, from a legal point of view, it was his opinion that that would not be appropriate. Therefore, the City Manager added the appeal process to the Planning Commission ordinance, thereby, creating that fourth tier. Prior to this addition, the process only went up to binding arbitration and there was no appeal to the City Council. Mrs. Cathy Manning, 14 Crest Road West, suggested that a strong distinction be made between preservation of a view and restoration of a view. Mayor Swanson asked Mrs. Manning if she had a recommendation. Mrs. Manning said her recommendation would be that language be put into the ordinance stating that only under the most severe circumstances would restoration of a view be considered. However, preservation of a view is a definite right of any property owner. She would basically like to see the restoration of views eliminated from the ordinance. Mrs. Manning also said that when a complainant gets three bids from contractors, they should be only contractors that are approved by the City. Mr. Don Gales, 19 Middleridge Lane, spoke with reference to the definition of "View" in the Planning Commission ordinance, and suggested that "the Palos Verdes hills" be added to the list of scenes, immediately following "city lights", the reason being that the Palos Verdes hills are an impressive view in themselves. Councilman Pernell reminded Mr. Gales of the letter that he had written to the Planning Commission in support of the proposed view ordinance and asked Mr. Gales to expand upon this. Councilman Pernell informed the audience that Mr. Gales is an authority of the flora of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and has authored a book entitled "A Handbook of Wildflowers, Weeds, Wildlife and Weather of the Palos Verdes Peninsula". Mr. Gales explained that most of the large trees and obstructions were planted a long time ago. Mr. Gales said that he believes a majority of the problems are caused by quick -fix landscaping of residences, in an effort to provide some screening and instant mature landscaping, without any thought given to maintenance of the vegetation, and which eventually becomes overgrown and needs to be thinned out. Dr. Arthur Adesko, 3 Georgeff Road, asked the City Attorney if this ordinance would supersede any prior agreement between neighbors. The City Attorney said that it is entirely possible that two neighbors could have a binding agreement that would supersede the effect of this ordinance, or could have some court judgement between L OEM them that might supersede the application of this ordinance. However, it wouldn't necessarily preclude the application of the ordinance by some other complainant. The City Attorney said that this is a difficult question and one that he would want to give more thought to. Generally speaking, people cannot agree between themselves to violate the law. But, the law here does not impose any obligation until after parties go through an entire process. If the parties choose not to go through that process, i.e., if they have some understanding that is binding on the both of them, the City Attorney is not persuaded that that would be a problem. Dr. Adesko asked if this ordinance would supersede any agreement that they inherited, and the City Attorney said he couldn't answer that question without knowing more information. Councilman Pernell asked what would happen if a third party filed a complaint on a property owner that had a binding agreement with another neighbor. The City Attorney said that no agreement would bind the third party. 00 Mrs. Shirley Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive, suggested that the r' wording in Section 10 of the Planning Commission ordinance be changed LO to read, "... shall be the responsibility of the owner of the -3 property, or subsectuent owners of the oroberty, which causes...". CO The City Attorney reiterated that this decision would be Q recorded, in perpetuity, against the property and not the individual. However, the City Attorney agreed that the language could be strengthened for clarification purposes. Mrs. Tyndall also commented that, the word "significantly" in the definition of "View Impairment" is vague and very subjective. The City Attorney commented that in his original version he attempted to quantify it somewhat, however, the Planning Commission, for whatever reason, did not use it. The City Manager stated that the Planning Commission used a broader definition because it could differ from one property to the next. In conclusion, Mrs. Tyndall said that she is very much in favor of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Paul Grubs, 1 Hackamore Road, agreed with the first speaker. He said that very serious thought should be given to the age of the trees with respect to view restoration. Mr. Grubs said that if a tree has existed for forty years, obviously people have moved in and have been faced with the view impairment from the very beginning. Trees, within about a ten year period, reach a height which is noticeable. If people are concerned about a view obstruction, they should speak up at that time, not forty years down the road. Mr. Grubs said that there are many trees that will die if cut off below 15 feet and on a forty year old tree there is usually very little vegetation below 20 feet. Therefore, Mr. Grubs felt very strongly that the age of the tree should be taken into consideration before any view restoration is performed. Mr. Grubs also stated that he felt that this matter should be brought to a vote because it is so significant and will have such an impact as to what will happen to the City. Mayor Swanson asked Mr. Grubs if he had difficulty with the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Grubs stated that he did have some problems with the ordinance. Councilman Pernell pointed out to Mr. Grubs that the proposed ordinance does not mandate a height limit of 15 feet. Mr. Grubs commented that his neighbor had their tree trimmed and laced, and it grew back fuller than before. He stated that, generally, when trees are trimmed or laced they grow much more prolific than before. He said in many instances, thinning has ultimately created a worse view impairment problem. - 12 - 130 Councilman Pernell discussed with Mr. Grubs his feelings regarding the proposed ordinance, and Mr. Grubs indicated that he is opposed to the ordinance and has a definite sensitivity regarding this matter. Mrs. Phyllis Walker Hutchinson, 29 Eastfield Drive, discussed tree trimming and its effects. She explained that certain trees when trimmed, in particular, Pines, grow even more abundantly than before or form another trunk and eventually create more of a view impairment. Mrs. Hutchinson said that we also need to be wary of people coming onto someone's property without permission to top or thin trees. In spite of this, Mrs. Hutchinson said that she is in favor of the ordinance. She said its her feeling that something has to be done to make it equal for everyone. She also commented that many people that talk about view restoration and preservation should look to their own property to make it more viewful for other people. Mayor Swanson welcomed Mr. Stringfellow, President of the Board of Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association. Mr. Jim Brogdon, 5 Maverick Lane, said that many people plant trees and don't really notice them growing large until, after many years, they are literally living in a forest. Mr. Brogdon said that he has told his neighbors that if he has any trees that bother them, to come see him about it and he would either have the obstructing tree removed or thinned, which he has done in the past. Mayor Swanson asked Mr. Brogdon if this is an indication that he is in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Brogdon said that to the contrary, he is not in favor of the ordinance because he feels it is an impossible situation. He said that he doesn't feel there is a solution to this problem. Mr. Bill Stringfellow, 85 Crest Road East, said that the Members of the Board of the Rolling Hills Association have discussed this matter and agree that something -ha's to be done. Also, Mr. Stringfellow commented that he understands Mrs. Manning's concerns, however, he believes that the Committee on Views would use good judgement and would not completely strip the Manning's trees and leave their home exposed. Mr. Stringfellow said that something needs to be done to restore, in a responsible manner, views that have been lost. Mr. Stringfellow posed a potential problem, that being who is responsible for the death of.a tree caused by trimming, as a result of a favorable decision of a view impairment complaint. He said that he can envision law suits over this type of issue. Mr. Stringfellow stated that he is very much in favor of the ordinance, and wished the Council good luck in their deliberations. He said that this matter is very difficult because it is very subjective. Councilman Pernell asked Mr. Stringfellow if the Association charges the Landscape Committee with any responsibilities with regard to view preservation. Mr. Stringfellow said that he did not know the answer to that question. Councilman Pernell said that maybe it would be possible to consider that as a possibility. Mr. Margrave, 55 Saddleback Road, stated that he is in favor of the goals of the ordinance. He said that, in his opinion, a view is a concrete thing. Mr. Margrave also stated that years ago he worked with the Landscape Committee, and they did take into consideration views. Mr. Margrave feels that there are too many trees and that removal of the trees would be the best solution. Mr. Ron Warmbier, 86 Crest Road East, expressed his appreciation to the Council for their efforts in this matter. Mr. Warmbier had some procedural questions for the City Attorney. With respect to Section 10, Payment of Cost of Correction, Mr. Warmbier asked who would make the determination, subsequent to a favorable decision, of view impairment, as to how often or when vegetation would have to be trimmed to preserve the view after abatement had been - 13 - L 131 achieved. Mr. Warmbier suggested that this be an annual evaluation. The City Manager explained that the purpose of the decision is to provide a plan for the future': sWlatever is necessary to restore and preserve the view, once it is determined what that restored view is going to be, would carry through to any future restoration which would be similar to the original decision. The City Attorney also commented that the vigilance of neighbors and of the complainant is the only means of enforcement. Other than that, there is no enforcing capacity in the City at this point in time. Mr. Warmbier then asked a question with regard to the initial, enforcement process. He said that in many instances positions have solidified over the years and an amicable solution is not possible. He wanted to know what happens when an owner of the obstructing trees refuses to allow anyone onto his/her property to remove or trim the offensive tree(s). The City Attorney stated that that is a potentially `troublesome situation. Mr. Jenkins said that it might become necessary to get a court order. The City Attorney said that one thing that is not included in the ordinance and which could be added, is the notion of not only declaring it a misdemeanor but also 00 making it a nuisance. Thus, if the property owner did not comply withthe order, it would give the City legal authority to enter upon LD the property. Mr. Warmbier also stated that it appears that this ordinance m only gives legal standing to the property owner as the complainant. Q However, Mr. Warmbier said that there are many common vistas throughout the City that are shared by the residents of the community and which have obstructed views. The City Attorney stated that the ordinance specifically restricts "view impairment" to views from residences. Mr. Warmbier said that he assumes that was the legislative intent. Councilman Pernell stated that he does not share that viewpoint. Councilman Pernell said that he doesn't feel it was necessarily the legislative intent. He said that this may just be an oversight. Councilman Pernell continued to say that he feels that this is a very valid point. Councilman Pernell remarked that there are many pleasant vistas as one drives along Crest Road, that he can see from some of the plantings, are eventually going to be threatened and obscured. Councilman Pernell feels that a provision for this type of situation should be included in the ordinance. Mayor Swanson confirmed with Mr. Warmbier that this was also his concern, and Mr. Warmbier indicated that, indeed, this was a concern of his. There were no further comments from the audience. Councilman Pernell suggested that the public hearing be continued because he feels there needs to be a lot more discussion on this matter. Therefore, the Mayor ordered that the public hearing be continued. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock said that the public hearing has raised some questions that are important to consider. She suggested that if any of the Councilmembers have questions or concerns they express them now or express them in writing to the City Manager to pass along to the City Attorney. Councilman Pernell also requested that, in the future, the Chairman or a Member of the Planning Commission attend the public hearings to, when necessary, explain their intent or the origin of some of their, thoughts. Councilman Pernell said that it appears that this is something that almost everyone wants to do something about but whatever is done is not a permanent solution. It is a recurring problem, similar to weed abatement. Councilman Pernell stated that he would like to know the experience of other cities that have an ordinance of this type in place. Councilman Pernell also suggested to the City Attorney that consideration be given to moving the process up a little bit. Currently, this whole process is started with a written complaint. That very act in itself may tend to harden some relationships between neighbors. If there were some way of being advised that such a complaint were being contemplated, prior to the time it were to become part of the official record, it might be helpful to neighbors in resolving the problem. - 14 - 132 Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh shared Councilman Pernell's concerns. She would like more verbal input from the Planning Commission Chairman. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh would also like another public hearing that is well noticed in hopes of receiving a wider range of opinions expressed at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Swanson stated that she had reviewed both versions of the proposed ordinance, that of the Planning Commission and that of the City Attorney, and feels that they are basically the same with the exception of the mediation procedure, the 4 -tier process versus the 3 -tier process. Mayor Swanson prefers the 3 -tier process because, in any case, it will be a difficult procedure and adding one more step makes it that much more tedious. She also favors the idea of having the City Council make the final decision in the event of an appeal. In both versions, the composition of the Committee is discussed and both versions suggest that a landscape architect be a member of the Committee. Mayor Swanson questioned whether such a highly skilled individual is necessary. Maybe it would be sufficient to have someone with landscape training but not necessarily an architect. Usually, landscape architects are costly. Both versions gave many reasons for trimming trees. Another important reason, and one that the Mayor would like the City Attorney to consider, is the erosion of soil around a tree that could potentially occur if a tree were to become so large that it pulls earth with it and topples after a heavy rain or watering. At times, a property owner may not be cognizant of such a problem but a neighbor might be if such a tree were to fall onto their property. Thus, such a concern should merit serious consideration for trimming or removal. The Council discussed whether to continue the public hearing to the first or second meeting in May since Councilman Pernell indicated that he would not be able to attend the first meeting in May. Mayor Pro Tem Murdock felt that this matter should be on the agenda as many times as is necessary, to encourage participation from the community. It was decided to continue the public hearing to the next regular Council meeting. NEW BUSINESS REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to remain for the reorganization of the City Council. The Mayor explained that it is customary every year to change Mayors, and that this position is basically rotated amongst the Council. Mayor Swanson reviewed her year as Mayor and the accomplishments of the past year. During the past year, a firm was hired to do the preliminary sewer study and the study has been completed, although, the process is continuing. The Council has been successful in receiving funding from the Federal Government for the Corps of Engineers to conduct a reconnaissance study in the Flying Triangle for the purpose of studying the South Peninsula -landslides. The Council has started the process of possibly adopting a view preservation ordinance. A Wildlife Preservation Committee was appointed and it is felt that this committee will play a very important role for the whole community. Procedure charts for building, zoning, planning, and subdivision applications have begun to be developed. The City is in good fiscal standing. An ordinance regulating the construction of tennis courts was revised and - 15 - 133 adopted. The Council hopes to receive a letter from the cable television company soon, indicating the availability of cable television in the community. All in,,all, it has been a very busy and successful year. Mayor Swanson moved that Councilwoman Murdock be elected Mayor. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh and Councilman Pernell seconded the motion. There being no objections, it was so ordered. Mayor Murdock was congratulated and seated. Former Mayor Swanson presented Mayor Murdock with a bouquet of oses and with a blank City plaque to be carried at all times to any [functions at which the Mayor would be representing the City and might be caught off guard by an unannounced honoree. Mayor Murdock presented former Mayor Swanson with a bouquet of roses and with a framed City plaque, engraved to express the Council's appreciation and commemorating former Mayor Swanson's term of office. co Mayor Murdock entertained a motion to elect Councilwoman T+eeuwenburgh as Mayor Pro Tempore. Councilman Pernell so moved. Councilwoman Swanson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mayor Murdock presented Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh with ?a bouquet of roses. Q Mayor Murdock recessed the meeting and invited the members of the audience to join the Council and staff at a brief reception. MEETING RECONVENED Mayor Murdock reconvened the meeting at 10:23 p.m. TRAFFIC COMMISSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT This is an ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGARDING COMMISSIONS AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE". Mayor Murdock asked the City Manager to comment on this ordinance. The City Manager explained that this ordinance is intended to modify the powers and duties of the Advisory Traffic Commission. The ordinance states that the Advisory Traffic Commission shall have the power and duty to: A. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding traffic regulations, signs and devices, on -street parking controls, lane striping and driveway curb cuts. B. Make recommendations to the City Council regarding administration and enforcement of traffic regulations. This ordinance expands the powers and duties of the Advisory Traffic Commission, to more accurately reflect the kinds of responsibilities that they have had occasion to deal with in the past. Councilman Pernell moved that the proposed ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REGARDING COMMISSION AND AMENDING THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE", be introduced. Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Status of Plannina Commission ADDointment Mayor Murdock reported that she and Councilwoman Swanson have been interviewing the applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy. - 16 - 134 They will submit, for the Council's review, a recommendation. Mayor Murdock asked that the Councilmembers make their comments, regarding the recommendation, to the City Manager. Councilman Pernell remarked that in the event that a single recommendation were made and there happened to be a strong objection, the sub -committee would have to submit another recommendation. Thus, to avoid this possibility, Councilman Pernell suggested that the sub -committee submit their top three applicants and circulate those names for review and comment, afterwhich, the sub -committee would make a recommendation. Mayor Murdock agreed with this suggestion and indicated that that would be the method for selection. Councilwoman Swanson said that the sub -committee interviewed all ten applicants, and that there were many very capable individuals. She remarked that it is encouraging to see so many qualified applicants. Councilman Pernell Councilman Pernell asked to be excused from the next meeting of the City Council. Councilwoman Swanson At the last Mayors' meeting, Mayor Schwarzmann, Rolling Hills Estates, reported that their city formed a committee which might compliment our City's Wildlife Preservation Committee. Mayor Schwarzmann wanted to put the chairman of their committee in touch with the City. Mr. Bill Ailor then contacted former Mayor Swanson and discussed their committee, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. It is more or less a parallel organization to the Nature Conservancy. They are trying to become a non-profit organization. Their responsibilities are a little different from our Wildlife Preservation Committee's responsibilities. Their committee basically protects open -space. However, they will be requesting to appear before the City Council within the next two months and report on their committee. Santa Monica Bav Estuary Proaram Councilwoman Swanson reported that at the Sanitation District Board of Directors meeting, the Board unanimously approved supporting the Santa Monica Bay as the national estuary. This support would give a signal to the EPA to include the Santa Monica Bay in the national estuaries program. Now it appears that Congress would like the cities to do likewise. E. Del Smith Aareement Mayor Murdock commented on the City's continued relationship with Del Smith. The Mayor asked whether, as a Council, any determinations should be made and discussions instituted as to what the future policy will be. The City Manager said that staff would recommend that the City's relationship with Del Smith be on an annual retainer basis and that, if it became necessary, depending upon a particular piece of legislation and a need to have an advocate in Washington, the City only pay on a pay-as-you-go basis rather than to carry a monthly stipend. Councilman Pernell asked what the fiscal impact would be of the City Manager's recommendation. The City Manager indicated it would cost approximately $2,400 per year, or $200 per month. - 17 - 00 LO D m a :1 Councilman Pernell stated.,'that he would be opposed to this recommendation in the absence of -any clear-cut issues that could even be remotely forecast. Mayor Murdock ordered that this matter be put on the agenda for the next meeting, for Council discussion and determination. Hazardous Waste Disposal Councilwoman Swanson informed the Council that at the Sanitation District Board meeting, approval was also given to set aside one day (yet to be determined) at the Palos Verdes landfill, for disposal of- hazardous waste materials. A list of hazardous materials will be attached to the information that will be mailed out. The difficulty is that each individual would have to deposit the materials themselves and it could not be a City project because the City would need to have a permit. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m., to Monday, May 9, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor - 18 -